{
  "id": 8683456,
  "name": "STATE v. FRANK H. DANIEL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Daniel",
  "decision_date": "1883-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "553",
  "last_page": "555",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "89 N.C. 553"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 3693,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5231318505441823
    },
    "sha256": "cb40a20d2aef5b55879ece2005f1f8f6884c8330a9953d5edca32149bf853209",
    "simhash": "1:90068b446f8b53d6",
    "word_count": 619
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:35:46.148190+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. FRANK H. DANIEL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "SMITH, C. J.\nThe indictment is framed under the act of 1866, Bat. Rev., ch. 70, amended by the act of March 11,1881, extending the offence to cases in which the contract is oral, and which, as amended, declares that, \u201cif any person shall entice, persuade and procure any servant by indenture, or any servant who shall have contracted in writing or verbally to serve his employer, to unlawfully leave the service of his master or employer; or if any person shall knowingly and unlawfully harbor and detain in his own service, and from the service of his master or employer, any servant who shall unlawfully leave the service of such master or employer; then, in either case, such person and servant may be sued, singly or jointly, by the master, and on recovery he shall have judgment for the actual double value of the damages assessed.\u201d\nThe succeeding section in addition imposes a penalty, and moreover, subjects to indictment \u201cthe person and servant violating the provisions of the preceding section.\u201d\nThe charge contained in the bill is, that the defendant \u201c unlawfully and wilfully did absent and leave the employment\u201d of the person with whom he had agreed to serve during the month of June, before the expiration of the term, but does not allege that this departure from service was by reason of enticement, persuasion or procurement of another, nor that upon his voluntary leaving lie entered into the service of another party.\nThe act imputed is the defendant\u2019s withdrawal from a service which he had stipulated to render, and violating his contract to serve for a given time, and this is not the offence designated and provided for in the statute. The mischief which the enactment was intended to remedy was the interference of others with the servants who had thus agreed to serve, by offering them inducements to depart, or, with knowledge that they had so departed in disregard of their contract obligations, by receiving such into their service. This, in our opinion, is the purpose and import of the statute, and it does not embrace the case made in the bill. The servant himself, to be subjected to the penalties imposed, must have participated in the action under circumstances such as would subject the enticing or harboring party, in the one or other alternative, to a criminal prosecution for his offence.\nWe therefore concur in the opinion of the court, that no criminal offence is charged in the indictment, and in the judgment quashing the bill, which is affirmed.\nNo error. \u2022 Affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SMITH, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General, for the State.",
      "No counsel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. FRANK H. DANIEL.\nServant Leaving Employer\u2019s Service \u2014 Indictment.\nAn indictment under Battle\u2019s Revisa], oh. 70, will not lie against a servant for wilfully leaving the employment of one with whom he had agreed to serve. The statute has reference only to persons enticing- servants to unlawfully leave the service of the employer.\nINDICTMENT for a misdemeanor tried at Fall term, 1883, of Perquimans Superior Court, befor Avery, J.\nThe indictment \u2014 The jurors, &c., present that the defendant, &c., unlawfully and wilfully did absent and leave the employment of John S. Hedrick, with whom the said \u2022 defendant had made a contract to work during the month of June, 1883, the time of service under said contract not having then expired, against the statute, &c.\nThe defendant\u2019s counsel 'moved to quash the bill, upon the ground that no indictment would lie under the statute against a servant for leaving the employment of the master, but only against the person enticing him to leave; and further, that the bill did not set forth the alleged contract.\nHis Honor sustained the motion, and the state solicitor appealed.\nAttorney-General, for the State.\nNo counsel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0553-01",
  "first_page_order": 569,
  "last_page_order": 571
}